Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I absolutely loved the movie. I didn't see it in 3D (Not a huge fan of 3D movies, and I'm really sorry I didn't decide to see it in 3D) but it was still visually stunning all the same. And yes, the plot was fairly predictable, but the way they were presented (Along with the fantastic musical score) were extremely moving and epic. There were actually moments I was almost in tears, like when the marines tear down the Hometree and drive the Na'vi out.

The ending was really cool, by the way. That final fight scene was INCREDIBLE, especially when the colonel leaps out of the exploding ship using one of those Dreadnought walker things. Holy crap, was that guy badass...and a total donkey-cave. ("Hmm, we can't breathe on Pandora, and I'm in a room full of people. I think I'll kick down the airlock to try and stop the traitors.")

Emperors Faithful wrote:So it's still not living up to it's budget yet?

Well it took a while for Transformers 2 to do that, didn't it?

RogueMarket wrote:1. you HAVE to watch it in 3d. Not watching it in 3d = fail.

Personally I think a movie that has to be seen in 3D to be considered "good" = fail. But to each their own...

Lint wrote:If you don't see it in 3D you're wasting your time.

Good to know! I'll just save my money and not watch it then if it's such a "waste".

Sidstyler wrote:

Lint wrote:If you don't see it in 3D you're wasting your time.

Good to know! I'll just save my money and not watch it then if it's such a "waste".

Owned


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Locclo wrote: but it was still visually stunning all the same. And yes, the plot was fairly predictable, but the way they were presented (Along with the fantastic musical score) were extremely moving and epic. There were actually moments I was almost in tears, like when the marines tear down the Hometree and drive the Na'vi out.

I completely agree Like you took it out of my mouth

Sidstyler wrote:
Personally I think a movie that has to be seen in 3D to be considered "good" = fail. But to each their own...

Sidstyler wrote:
Good to know! I'll just save my money and not watch it then if it's such a "waste".

The general consensus of this thread is that the story was pretty weak, but the 3D element is something none of us has experienced on this scale, or of this quality. So yes, save your money isf you're looking for an all-time epic. But if you want to experience some mind blowing cgi, then peel off a couple bills and stop being such a negative nancy.

This was the first feature filml I had seen in IMAX, not to mention IMAX 3d. I am sooooo glad this was the first one I had seen in this format. It definately was awesome to watch in IMAX 3d, however I am pretty sure I would have enjoyed the movie in regular format.

GG

Just saw it in 3D. Wow.

It makes LotR look like a Sci Fi original motion picture.

Lint wrote:then peel off a couple bills and stop being such a negative nancy.

It's my keyboard and I'll bitch if I want to!

It makes LotR look like a Sci Fi original motion picture.

Christ, that's harsh.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

It makes LotR look like a Sci Fi original motion picture.

I'm going to have to steal that line

Glad you saw it in 3-d, imo it was one of the most awesome cinematic experiences.

Sidstyler wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So it's still not living up to it's budget yet?

Well it took a while for Transformers 2 to do that, didn't it?

RogueMarket wrote:1. you HAVE to watch it in 3d. Not watching it in 3d = fail.

Personally I think a movie that has to be seen in 3D to be considered "good" = fail. But to each their own...

Lint wrote:If you don't see it in 3D you're wasting your time.

Good to know! I'll just save my money and not watch it then if it's such a "waste".

Sid, who pissed in your Cheerios? You've been acting like a dick lately.

I just got back from seeing it, and damn...the most visually stunning, and dare I say it, most beautiful movie that I have ever seen. And I hate using the word beautiful but it's all that works.

Sure it's like Dancing with Wolves (in spaaace) but who gives a damn?

James Cameron does it again and sets the bar way up high. That's my final verdict.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Sid, who pissed in your Cheerios? You've been acting like a dick lately.

I just got back from seeing it, and damn...the most visually stunning, and dare I say it, most beautiful movie that I have ever seen. And I hate using the word beautiful but it's all that works.

Sure it's like Dancing with Wolves (in spaaace) but who gives a damn?

James Cameron does it again and sets the bar way up high. That's my final verdict.

QFT.

I just saw it in normal mode and now I have snuck into the IMAX 3D show... It's sold out so I guess someone will hafta stand.... Hurrrrr!

G

Sid, who pissed in your Cheerios? You've been acting like a dick lately.

...you mean I wasn't a dick before?

Here is what I liked about the movie:

The main character portrays himself as just another grunt but turns out to be a great leader.

The tribe is based upon a combination of Africans, Amazons and Native Americans.

The 3D was amazing.

G

And you're still permitted to post here because...?

dogma wrote:And you're still permitted to post here because...?

...I haven't done anything wrong that I can think of? Other than having a different opinion at least.

Someone must not think I'm all that bad or I wouldn't be here.

GBF, not you.

Not to go OT , i want this thread alive , but why should'nt he be alowed to post ?

The visuals are truly a thing of beauty and really do a good job of overwhelming the audience into not noticing the glaring faults of everything that isn't a pixel. The story is ok at best, same for the acting. The cinematography is generally workmanlike with a few beautiful shots. The score is probably the worst part of the film, as it is just so....there. I suppose it is serviceable, but not really memorable. I take that back, the pop song at the end is atrocious. The underlying messages, whether purposeful or not run the gammut from fairly pedestrian all the way to racist. It isn't an awful movie, but if you pull back the curtain that 300 million in fx buys you, you find an ok movie.

As a tech demo it succeeds wildly, so that gets an A. As a piece of cinema it won't surprise anyone in the least at any moment in almost any way. I'll give this a C. It isn't great, but it isn't that bad either.

I will add the caveat that it really is worth seeing for the effects in 3D, if nothing more to see what the future will hold.

Now I'm off to go see Sherlock Holmes.

Just saw it a second time, and it's still awesome.

Something I didn't notice the first time, but heard about and looked for this time were some of the physical differences between Avatars and natural Navi. The Navi have 4 fingers, while the Avatars have "normal" human hands. What makes Weaver's Avatar look odd, is that she's got a human nose, while the others are more cat-like. Cool little details like that are nice.

I noticed that as well and thought it was very cool. Definitely one of my favorite movies for 2009. Looking forward to Wolfman in February.

G

Sidstyler wrote:

Sid, who pissed in your Cheerios? You've been acting like a dick lately.

...you mean I wasn't a dick before?

Well, I didn't think so. Or does this surprise you?

Wow just wow...

* facepalm *

Sidstyler wrote:

Lint wrote:then peel off a couple bills and stop being such a negative nancy.

It's my keyboard and I'll bitch if I want to!

It makes LotR look like a Sci Fi original motion picture.

Christ, that's harsh.

Just calling it like I see it. Fellowship is what, 10 years old now? Think of what Elfland would look like under Cameron's direction. Course Jackson shot all 3 on a lower budget than this one...

When referring to RotK looking like a SyFy Original, do you mean in respect to the special effects, or the movie as a whole?

Ahtman wrote:When referring to RotK looking like a SyFy Original, do you mean in respect to the special effects, or the movie as a whole?

With respect to integrating actors and CGI and creating an alien environment.

Someone said seeing this was like seeing T2 or Jurrasic Park. Or the first talkies or first color film I guess. After this other films are just going to look dated.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Ahtman wrote:When referring to RotK looking like a SyFy Original, do you mean in respect to the special effects, or the movie as a whole?

With respect to integrating actors and CGI and creating an alien environment.

Someone said seeing this was like seeing T2 or Jurrasic Park. Or the first talkies or first color film I guess. After this other films are just going to look dated.

So the special effects.

No. Vision plays a role as well.

The amazing thing about Avatar is it looked like the Amazon rain forest, but then it went 3 steps beyond. The plants, the luminesence, the animal life, it was amazing.

LotR in contrast gave us some tree houses (very nice tree houses) and called it a magical land of wonder. Of course Jackson was limited by what could be done, what he could afford to do and bound to the books, but all in all suddenly my memories of Middle Earth are not too impressive.

There was also the fact that he had the magnificent backdrop of New Zealand to shoot against, instead of having to create so much of it wholesale.

WOOO!!! AVATAR!!! WOOO!!!! Yeah, it had a ify story line but hey who needs story line when you have Dreadnought walker things shoting the crap out of tau!!! FRINKIN TAU!!!
One bit of the story line did screw me a bit where all the animals come to help WTF!!??!!
ANd can anyone tell me what happened to the scientist not the dead one but the one that got his avatar killed.

Ahtman wrote:The visuals are truly a thing of beauty and really do a good job of overwhelming the audience into not noticing the glaring faults of everything that isn't a pixel. The story is ok at best, same for the acting. The cinematography is generally workmanlike with a few beautiful shots. The score is probably the worst part of the film, as it is just so....there. I suppose it is serviceable, but not really memorable. I take that back, the pop song at the end is atrocious. The underlying messages, whether purposeful or not run the gammut from fairly pedestrian all the way to racist. It isn't an awful movie, but if you pull back the curtain that 300 million in fx buys you, you find an ok movie.

As a tech demo it succeeds wildly, so that gets an A. As a piece of cinema it won't surprise anyone in the least at any moment in almost any way. I'll give this a C. It isn't great, but it isn't that bad either.

I will add the caveat that it really is worth seeing for the effects in 3D, if nothing more to see what the future will hold.

Now I'm off to go see Sherlock Holmes.

Word. The effects were good, but I had no emotional attachment to the film, other than liking the bad guy. I didn't get bored, but I definitely was not WOWED! once the shock of the wonderful effects wore off.

Now to see Nine.